Resources

Peer Observation of Teaching

Question: How can instructors get the most out of formative, cross-disciplinary peer observation of one another's teaching?

Search Terms: peer observation, formatve peer observation, reflective teaching, peer observation protocol

Date: Autumn 2024

Synthesis of Selected Sources

This research review presents perspectives on peer observation (PO) of teaching, ranging from theoretical (how PO should work) to practical (how certain frameworks were implemented and perceived in small-scale studies). These articles link theory and practice and reveal the possible benefits and complications of PO. Frameworks range from evaluative to formative; this review focuses on formative frameworks. The commonalities among these frameworks highlight the most important parts of the peer observation process. 

First, many frameworks respond to common instructor anxieties around observation. In fact, faculty fears of judgment and criticism motivated Barbeau & Happel’s (2023) Critical Teaching Behaviors (CTB) Observation Protocol, which aimed to build confidence in teaching and to encourage equity and fairness in teaching observations. Faculty may worry that observations are unfair or biased, or that observers will be under-trained in knowing what and how to observe classes and share feedback. If this unfairness or under-training is indeed present, faculty might perceive a threat to their academic freedom. Therefore, framing the observations matters, which is why many frameworks focus on formative, constructive, evidence-based feedback in a safe environment. In Dillon et al.’s (2020) protocol, the pre-observation meeting attempts to diffuse some of those fears by positioning them as an opportunity for conversation, connection, relating, and trust-building.  

A second feature linking the frameworks was centering self-reflection. Peel (2005) writes that merely observing someone’s class isn’t enough for it to be impactful. Rather, learning more about one’s teaching “depends upon individual perceptions, individual reflective capacity, and the potential creative use of personal insights” (Peel, 2005, p. 495). Reflection on those individual perceptions must be intentionally incorporated into PO in order for it to be effective. Expanding on this idea, Barbeau and Happel (2023) frame PO as a reflective process for the observed instructor and incorporate opportunities for observed instructors to summarize their strengths, identify areas for growth, and plan for future professional development. The PO protocol developed by Dillon et al (2020) encouraged instructors to reflect on and evaluate their own teaching prior to the observation as it relates to what aspect(s) of teaching they want the observer to focus on (for example, student engagement, use of technology, clarity of instruction, responding to student thinking, challenging content, groupwork, etc.).  

A third connection between frameworks is the structuring of the PO process. In many protocols, instructors communicate before the observation, be it meeting in real time (Fletcher, 2018; Barbeau & Happel, 2023), and/or the observed instructor completing a worksheet with their observation focus areas (Barbeau & Happel, 2023; Dillon, et al, 2020). During the pre-observation meetings, the observed instructor follows a protocol to reflect on just one aspect of teaching (Dillon, et al, 2020), on ten teaching dimensions (Drew, Klopper & Nulty, 2015; see annotation for a list) or even more than that (Fletcher, 2018, p. 7, Table 2). Pre-observation communication encourages self-reflection and discussion between instructors, creates and strengthens the teaching community, and fosters broad, cross-disciplinary pedagogical discussions.  

Fourth, all of these PO frameworks can be used across disciplines, even if, in the case of Dillon et al, 2020, they were initially developed for STEM. With their focus on providing formative (as opposed to evaluative) feedback, they steer conversations toward the broader aspects of teaching and away from the discipline itself (Fletcher, 2018). O’Keeffe and colleagues (2021), who studied faculty from ten fields across humanities, arts, social sciences, and STEM, suggested that the lack of shared discipline helped instructors focus on pedagogy and listen more deeply. The differences in disciplines created “safety and comfort in authentically engaging in dialogue about practice,” and allowed observers to adopt the student perspective more easily (O’Keeffe, et al, 2021, p. 271). Instructors also had to explain the details of their teaching, particularly ideas or practices that colleagues in their field might have taken for granted (O’Keeffe, et al, 2021). The protocol itself may even provide a common teaching language across disciplines (Barbeau & Happel, 2023).  

As a whole, the research on PO suggests several important considerations for peer observation. First, participants should use this opportunity to reflect primarily on their own teaching through observing others, rather than imposing judgment. Reflection can be incorporated both before and after the observation takes place, since (re)considering one’s own positions and choices in teaching is a pivotal way of making PO effective. Second, pairing instructors across disciplines may be useful so that the observational focus remains on pedagogy and student learning, rather than course content. Third, the observed instructor should share their goals for the observation and choose 1-2 areas of teaching for the observer to attend to during their class visit to narrow the observer’s comments. Finally, those who participate in peer observation should attend training to learn how to use the peer observation protocol. Training could help both the observer and observed avoid bias and uncertainty, and could reassure teachers who are nervous about observers being untrained in observation.

Annotated Bibliography

    Barbeau, L., & Cornejo Happel, C. (2023). Critical teaching behaviors: Defining, documenting, and discussing good teaching (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003443902

    Written by two educational developers, this chapter discusses the problems that commonly arise in and presents a protocol for PO. Some of these issues can include loss of autonomy and power (perceived threat to academic freedom and one’s place in the hierarchy), judgment and unfairness (fear of conscious or unconscious judgment and unfairness in others’ observations), and confusion and a lack of guidance (disagreeing on what good teaching is and being unsure of what to look for in observations). The goals of this protocol work against these obstacles, aiming to spark reflection and growth, confidence and community, equity and fairness, and cross-disciplinary connections. The CTB process for observation contains three stages.  

    1. First is a pre-observation meeting, in which instructors get to know each other and the observation process, and where the observed instructor reflects on what they want from the observation and their desired area of focus.  

    2. During the observation, the observer takes notes either synchronously, noting events as they happen, or categorically, noting events as they fit into different categories. The observer looks for confirmation of the observed instructor’s perspective, and things that they might consider in addition to what they’re doing (“You state X, I observed Y.”). The observer should ask questions to prompt further reflection.  

    3. In the debrief, the observer avoids evaluation, since the purpose of this observation is providing formative feedback and prompting reflection. The observed instructor leads the conversation while the observer listens. The observer should focus feedback on 2-3 strengths and 1-2 areas for growth, providing evidence for all. This chapter also contains a helpful list of things to avoid for peer observation in order to build trust.

    Dillon, H., James, C., Prestholdt, T., Peterson, V., Salomone, S., & Anctil, E. (2020). Development of a formative peer observation protocol for STEM faculty reflection. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 45(3), 387–400. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2019.1645091

    Developed by a community of STEM faculty, the REFLECT observation protocol focuses on providing formative feedback to instructors. After a two-hour training on how to use the protocol constructively, the instructors began their observations. The protocol consists of several steps: 

    1. A pre-observation meeting, in which observer and observed work on building trust and diffusing fears around PO. During this meeting, the observed instructor selects one of the following topics as the focus of their observation: clarity of instruction, use of technology, equity of student engagement, goal-oriented instruction, responding to student thinking, challenging content, types of student engagement, and group work. They also self-assess this area of their teaching. 

    2. The observation, during which the observer fills out a worksheet regarding the teaching dimension that is the focus of the observation. This worksheet is open-ended and asks the observer to find evidence that contributes to the observed instructor’s practice in that area. At the end of the observation, the observer asks students to fill out a minute paper/exit ticket about the dimension of instruction; they ask a range of questions, depending on the dimension, and can customize their inquiries for the class. In their report, the observer summarizes students’ feedback. 

    3. A post-observation meeting, in which pairs discuss the selected dimension of teaching as well as the student feedback. The feedback in this meeting is specific since instructors only select one dimension to focus on during the observation; if the instructor wants additional feedback on other dimensions, the observer can do a separate, additional observation.  

    Notably, this is the only observation protocol I found that incorporates student feedback. From surveys administered to study participants, the researchers concluded that this protocol was helpful in encouraging teacher reflection on new and familiar teaching practices. Finally, although the authors classify their protocol as STEM-specific, one of their group members taught in film studies but still was able to use the protocol effectively.

    Drew, S., Klopper, C., & Nulty, D. (2015). Defining and developing a framework for the peer observation of teaching. In C. Klopper & S. Drew (Eds.), Teaching for learning and learning for teaching (pp. 13–34). SensePublishers. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6300-289-9_2

    This team of faculty developer (Drew), administration/faculty (Klopper) and faculty (Nulty) developed and studied the implementation of a PO framework called PRO-Teaching (Peer Review and Observation of Teaching) at an Australian university. The protocol, inspired by weaknesses the authors identified in other protocols, is based on Nulty’s definitions of sound pedagogical practice. After a detailed discussion of the revisions to Nulty’s former work, the authors identified ten questions that guided their peer observation protocol: 

    1. Does the teacher clearly define explicit, realistic, and challenging yet achievable aims and learning objectives? 

    2. Does the teacher demonstrate advanced content knowledge to create clear explanations and address student questions? 

    3. Does the teacher demonstrate a teaching style supported by appropriate strategies for creating interest and effectively engaging students in learning activities? 

    4. Does the teacher exhibit a generosity of person, benevolence toward students, humility in their role, interest in teaching, and availability to students to render assistance? 

    5. Does the teacher engage with activities in class that test student understanding and adapt or adopt teaching strategies to further develop that understanding? 

    6. Does the teacher encourage students to reflect and share what they already know about the topic, discuss how it relates to other things that they know, and hypothesize about its implications for particular problems and cases? 

    7. Does the teacher organize learning activities and assessments in a structured and coherent manner that assists students to achieve the stated learning objectives?  

    8. Does the teacher make effective use of the available features of the environment to enhance their teaching and the student learning experience? 

    9. Does the teacher use appropriate teaching materials and aids and make use of them in an appropriate manner that assists students to reach the learning objectives? 

    10. Does the teacher reveal a scholarly approach to teaching and seek to improve teaching performance? 

    Although there isn’t much discussion of the impacts of using this PO process, and there are no materials presented in this article, these questions still may be useful as instructors consider what and how much to observe in each other’s classrooms.

    While observation is more prevalent in K-12 education, it is less normalized in higher education. Fletcher’s article includes materials you might consider using or adapting for your own purposes, including a pre- and post-observation form, observation worksheet, and a collection of items to look for in a peer observation. Like other PO protocols presented here, Fletcher’s contains three parts and is formative. Those three parts are: 

    1. Pre-observation meeting: for the observed to share more about the course context, set learning outcomes for the lesson, and discuss teaching strategies. The pair can also discuss other aspects of observation, like who gets to keep the observer’s notes taken during the lesson (perhaps the instructor?) or how to explain the observer’s presence in the class.  

    2. Observation: Fletcher suggests a few different note-taking strategies for the observation, including taking notes in synchronous order, or dividing one’s notes into what students are doing and what the teacher is doing. Sample observation schema are available in Appendix B of this article. 

    3. Feedback meeting: This meeting is meant to facilitate development in teaching. The conversation could begin by the observed instructor sharing their observations of what happened in the course and whether it was a typical day for them. The observer should offer constructive and honest feedback, asking the instructor to reflect on their teaching through follow-up questions like “Why do you think that happened? What would you do next time? How did you feel at that point?” The observer should also avoid imposing their point of view during the meeting. 

    Two additional suggestions from Fletcher’s work may be worth considering. One is confidentiality, an important part of building trust in PO pairs. Responding to previous research in this area, Fletcher writes that in order for colleagues to address candid questions or reveal and discuss teaching dilemmas, there has to be mutual trust that their conversations are confidential and will not be used to compromise tenure, promotion, or the respect they have earned as a teacher. Reminding faculty about the formative nature of PO is also important, since this kind of observation is only meant to foster reflection, not to issue a judgment about tenure, promotion, or salary increases.

    O’Keeffe, M., Crehan, M., Munro, M., Logan, A., Farrell, A. M., Clarke, E., Flood, M., Ward, M., Andreeva, T., Van Egeraat, C., Heaney, F., Curran, D., & Clinton, E. (2021). Exploring the role of peer observation of teaching in facilitating cross-institutional professional conversations about teaching and learning. International Journal for Academic Development, 26(3), 266–278. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360144X.2021.1954524

    In this chronicle of cross-institutional and cross-disciplinary peer observation, participants (the authors) sought to explore how Peer Observation of Teaching (POT) could provide structure for conversations about learning and teaching across a range of disciplines (education, business, computer science, pharmacy, geography, economics, management, and health informatics. Everyone taught classes that had a large lecture format. Emergent themes from the participants’ experience included: (1) sharing and listening to stories of practice, (2) focusing on pedagogy in a listening environment, (3) honesty and openness, and (4) the adoption of a longitudinal approach to enable reflection. As in other cross-disciplinary peer observation groups, participants noted that the differences in discipline created an environment of safety and comfort, where participants could articulate and unpack disciplinary assumptions. For some, being an outsider was helpful and allowed them to adopt the perspectives of students more easily. Participants also noted that peer observation helped them focus on their teaching practice as a whole and its larger themes, such as in-class activities and the measurement of student learning, rather than the small details, such as how fast an instructor speaks and the clarity of their instructions, which can change on a daily basis and aren’t necessarily rooted in teaching values.

    Peel, D. (2005). Peer observation as a transformatory tool? Teaching in Higher Education, 10(4), 489–504. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562510500239125

    Through her own experiences, Peel reflects on the usefulness, consequences, and transformative possibilities of Peer Observation of Teaching (POT). This paper is cited often in research on POT, and although it stems more from Peel’s own experiences of observation as a student teacher, it still has many useful insights for those considering their own frameworks or participating in peer observation with colleagues. Peel argues that peer observation is only useful when reflection is deliberately incorporated into the process – individual reflection on one’s own teaching practices and on perceptions of teaching and students, as well as the potential applications of those insights. She points out the advantages of reflective engagement with POT, including: “the value of preparation, structure, organization, timing, interaction and inclusivity in the classroom” but perhaps more importantly, “a synthesis of substantive knowledge, a critically reflective engagement with teaching practice, and a confidence in one’s self” (p. 495). The observer is central to that reflection process. They are present as an instructor explores and explains their teaching practices, provide support for the changes teachers make, and provide “productive discomfort” by holding up a mirror for their actions (Peel, 2005, p. 498). Who the observer is, however, also matters, because teachers may bring “a variety of experience, baggage, and competence into the classroom. Experience does not guarantee quality performance [in peer observation]” (Peel, 2005, p. 498-9). Finally, Peel emphasizes the importance of using a teaching observation framework critically, ensuring that those using the teaching protocol are trained well, and being clear about the formative purpose of POT.

Prepared By: Karin Maxey (kmaxey1@uchicago.edu)